Zkrollups have become a trending method of moving funds from L2 due to it’s ability to batch transactions and save on gas fees. We’ve seen a few uses cases deployed to date and seem to be having some success.
My question is, is Nash able to utilize such a method in current infrastructure? Can it be an additional option to withdraw? Here is where my head went…
Nash could offer 2 options for withdraw. The traditional gas fee we are using today, and an optional ZKrollup withdraw that could run daily or even weekly. Users could choose to use the ZKrollup withdraw as a way to save fees by sacrificing the speed of their withdraw.
Basically, users would queue in the ZKrollup withdraw until the fee hits an acceptable level and then is shared between the users that are withdrawing. (Or however the fee gets funded, not sure how this plays from a non-custodial perspective)
I know there is a lot of parts within the ME and this probably isn’t something easily done, but I wanted to share my shower thought
Currently the focus is on winning market shares on the fiat-to-crypto market. It is lucrative and Nash is in a good position to become a recognized actor. The keys to success are:
Compliant and handles KYC (helps convince third-parties)
Low fees (helps convince buyers)
Good UX (helps convince both)
Once this is achieved the focus should shift - according to the public roadmap - onto banking services.
Based on the above, L2 is less at the center of attention, so I don’t think any protocol upgrade or addition is being considered. This will however not always be the case so this thread should definitely be revisited in the future.
@canesin I have a technical question for the nash team. I would like to connect to the Polygon network. When using Metamask, there is an option “Custom RPC” (see below) for switching to the Matic Mainnet. Would it be a big deal to implement such an option in Nash’s wallet connect feature… Maybe a little bit more customer friendly than Metamask?
Nash doesn’t use RPC same way as Metamask so I am unsure, a few months back we changed away from constructing the transactions data client side due to several users complaining of having transactions pending during Ethereum congestion - it is certainly interesting that Metamask users don’t seem to associate failed Uniswap trades and pending transactions with issues on it.
